Ethics of the Atomic Bomb: Past Paper Exam Questions PDF

Ethics and Pub Policy Exam 1: **Case Breakdown: The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (Truman & Hiroshima)** **Historical Context: Why Did the U.S. Drop the Atomic Bomb?** By the summer of **1945**, World War II in the Pacific was nearing its end, but Japan had not yet surrendered. The United State...

Ethics and Pub Policy Exam 1: **Case Breakdown: The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (Truman & Hiroshima)** **Historical Context: Why Did the U.S. Drop the Atomic Bomb?** By the summer of **1945**, World War II in the Pacific was nearing its end, but Japan had not yet surrendered. The United States, having fought a costly war in both Europe and the Pacific, sought a way to end the conflict quickly while minimizing further casualties. 1. **War in the Pacific & Japanese Resistance** - The U.S. had **island-hopped** through the Pacific, capturing key territories like Iwo Jima and Okinawa. - Japan's military leaders **refused to surrender**, despite suffering heavy losses. - The U.S. estimated that an invasion of Japan (**Operation Downfall**) would cause **hundreds of thousands of American casualties** and potentially millions of Japanese deaths. 2. **The Manhattan Project & Development of the Bomb** - The **Manhattan Project**, a secret U.S. research effort, had successfully developed **nuclear weapons**. - Two bombs were ready for use: - **Little Boy** (uranium bomb) -- Dropped on **Hiroshima** on August 6, 1945. - **Fat Man** (plutonium bomb) -- Dropped on **Nagasaki** on August 9, 1945. 3. **The Decision to Drop the Bomb** - President **Harry S. Truman** authorized the use of the bomb **without prior warning to Japan**. - The stated goals were: - **To force Japan's immediate surrender.** - **To prevent a costly land invasion of Japan.** - **To demonstrate U.S. military power (particularly to the Soviet Union).** 4. **The Bombings & Their Effects** - **Hiroshima (August 6, 1945)**: - Estimated **140,000 people killed** by the end of 1945 (direct blast, radiation, fires). - Mostly civilians, though there were some military targets (e.g., army headquarters). - **Nagasaki (August 9, 1945)**: - Estimated **70,000 people killed** by the end of 1945. - Hit a more industrial area, but still caused mass civilian casualties. - **Japan's Surrender (August 15, 1945)**: - Emperor Hirohito announced Japan's unconditional surrender. - **WWII officially ended on September 2, 1945**. **Ethical Frameworks for Analyzing the Bombing** To determine whether the bombings were justified, we can apply **Just War Theory** and the **Doctrine of Double Effect**. **1. Just War Theory (Michael Walzer)** Just War Theory evaluates the morality of war in two parts: **Jus ad Bellum (\"Justice OF War\") -- Was the U.S. justified in waging war?** - The U.S. was already at war with Japan following **Pearl Harbor (1941)**. - Japan's leadership refused to surrender, despite multiple defeats. - The bomb was dropped to **end the war quickly and prevent more deaths**. - **Justification:** The war was already ongoing, and the U.S. had a legitimate reason to seek an end to it. **Jus in Bello (\"Justice IN War\") -- Were the bombings conducted ethically?** - **Discrimination Principle:** Military actions should target **combatants, not civilians**. - **Problem**: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were **densely populated civilian areas**. - While Hiroshima housed military targets, **most victims were civilians**. - **Proportionality Principle:** The **harm caused must not exceed the military advantage gained**. - Supporters argue the bomb **prevented a larger bloodbath**. - Critics argue the bomb **was excessive and indiscriminate**. 👉 **Ethical Dilemma**: The bombings may have violated **jus in bello** due to **indiscriminate killing of civilians**. **2. Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) -- Was the Civilian Harm Justifiable?** DDE is used to determine whether **an action with both good and bad effects can be justified**. Four conditions must be met: 1. **The Act Itself Must Be Good or Morally Neutral** - Destroying enemy military infrastructure **is not inherently immoral**. - However, **deliberate attacks on civilians violate Just War Theory**. 2. **The Intended Effect Must Be Morally Acceptable** - **U.S. goal**: To force Japan's surrender and end the war. - **Unintended effect**: Mass civilian deaths. - **Problem**: Some argue civilian deaths **were NOT truly unintended**, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen knowing they had many non-combatants. 3. **The Bad Effect Must Not Be Intended (Only Foreseen)** - Truman's administration claimed they **intended to destroy military targets**. - However, they knew **civilians would die in massive numbers**. - **Criticism**: If the U.S. knew civilians would die, can their deaths be considered \"unintended\"? 4. **Proportionality -- The Good Must Outweigh the Harm** - **Supporters argue**: The bombings **saved millions of lives** by preventing an invasion. - **Critics argue**: Japan was already close to surrender, making the bombings unnecessary. 👉 **Ethical Dilemma**: The bombings **might not satisfy** the Doctrine of Double Effect since **civilian harm was predictable and perhaps even intended**. **Arguments For & Against the Bombing** **Justifications for the Bomb** **Arguments Against the Bomb** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Ended the war quickly** -- Prevented a drawn-out invasion of Japan. **Mass civilian casualties** -- Majority of victims were noncombatants. **Saved American and Japanese lives** -- An invasion could have killed **millions**. **Japan was already near surrender** -- Some historians argue Japan was about to capitulate due to Soviet intervention. **Demonstrated U.S. power** -- Discouraged Soviet aggression post-war. **Alternatives were available** -- Some argue a **military demonstration** or continued conventional bombing could have sufficed. **Retaliation for Pearl Harbor** -- Japan's surprise attack justified a strong response. **Set a dangerous precedent** -- First (and only) use of nuclear weapons in war. **Final Evaluation: Was the Bombing Justified?** ✅ **Truman's Justification (Pro-Bombing)** - The bomb **ended WWII** and saved **American and Japanese lives**. - It **forced Japan's surrender**, preventing a drawn-out war. - Japan's refusal to surrender **made some form of extreme force necessary**. ❌ **Criticism (Anti-Bombing)** - The bomb **targeted civilians**, violating **Just War Theory**. - **Japan was already weakened**, and an invasion **might not have been needed**. - **Alternatives (e.g., a warning demonstration) were not fully explored**. **Doctrine of Double Effect Verdict**: **Unclear** - If **Truman's true goal was military victory**, the bomb may be **partially justified**. - If the goal **included intimidating the Soviet Union**, then civilian deaths might not have been fully unintended, making the bombings **unethical**. **Final Takeaways** 1. **The bombings raise fundamental ethical questions** about war and morality. 2. **Just War Theory suggests** that while war itself was justified, the bombings may have **violated ethical conduct in war** (jus in bello). 3. **Doctrine of Double Effect remains inconclusive** -- If civilian harm was foreseeable and could have been avoided, then the bombings may not be justified. 4. **Historical interpretations vary** -- Some see the bomb as a **necessary evil**, others as a **war crime**. **Exam Strategy for This Case** When answering a question about **Hiroshima and Nagasaki**, structure your response as follows: 1. **Identify the ethical problem** -- Was the bombing morally justified? 2. **Apply Just War Theory** -- Evaluate **jus ad bellum** (was war justified?) and **jus in bello** (were actions within war justified?). 3. **Apply Doctrine of Double Effect** -- Analyze **intent, proportionality, and foreseen harm**. 4. **Weigh arguments for and against** -- Consider **historical, military, and ethical perspectives**. 5. **Reach a conclusion** -- Present your stance with supporting evidence. **Case Breakdown: Political Deception & the Iran-Contra Affair** **Historical Context: What Was the Iran-Contra Affair?** The **Iran-Contra Affair (1980s)** was a **major political scandal** involving secret U.S. government dealings with Iran and Nicaraguan rebels (**the Contras**) under **President Ronald Reagan**. The scandal became public in **1986**, revealing a **covert operation that violated U.S. laws and Congressional restrictions**. **Key Events Leading to the Scandal** 1. **U.S. Hostages in Lebanon** (1984--1985) - Several American citizens were **kidnapped by Hezbollah**, an Iranian-backed terrorist group in Lebanon. - Reagan's administration **wanted to negotiate their release** but had **publicly declared a no-negotiation policy with terrorists**. 2. **Arms Sales to Iran** (1985--1986) - The U.S. **secretly sold weapons to Iran** despite: - A U.S. **arms embargo against Iran** (because of the Iran-Iraq War). - **Iran being designated as a sponsor of terrorism**. - **Goal:** The administration claimed it was trying to **secure the release of hostages** in Lebanon. - **Reality:** The arms sale violated U.S. policy and was **kept secret from Congress and the public**. 3. **Funding the Nicaraguan Contras** (1985--1986) - In **Nicaragua**, a socialist government (**Sandinistas**) was in power. - The U.S. backed a **rebel group (Contras)** fighting against the Sandinistas. - **Congress had banned U.S. military aid to the Contras** through the **Boland Amendment** (1982--1984). - **Reagan officials illegally funneled money from the arms sales to fund the Contras**. 4. **Exposure & Public Outrage (1986)** - A **Lebanese newspaper exposed the arms-for-hostages deal**. - The U.S. government initially **denied involvement**, but later investigations proved the allegations. - **Key officials**, including Lieutenant Colonel **Oliver North** and National Security Advisor **John Poindexter**, took the fall. - **Congressional hearings (1987)**: Televised testimony revealed the **full extent of the deception**. **Ethical Issues at Stake** This case raises **core questions about political deception and democratic accountability**: 1. **When, if ever, is political deception justified?** 2. **Should the government lie to protect national security?** 3. **Does the end justify the means in foreign policy?** 4. **Can leaders bypass democratic oversight for "the greater good"?** **Ethical Theories & Tests to Apply** To evaluate whether the Iran-Contra Affair was justified, we apply the following ethical frameworks: **1. Bok's Justification for Deception** Bok argues that **deception in politics can be justified** only if: ✅ The deception **has public justification**.\ ✅ **Non-deceptive alternatives** have been exhausted.\ ✅ The lie **passes ethical scrutiny** (e.g., conscience test, public test). 👉 **Application to Iran-Contra Affair**: - **Did the public consent to being deceived?** ❌ No. The administration actively hid the operation. - **Were all non-deceptive alternatives explored?** ❌ No. The administration ignored legal diplomatic channels. - **Would the deception pass public scrutiny?** ❌ No. The scandal caused **major political fallout**. 🛑 **Conclusion:** The Iran-Contra Affair **fails Bok's test**---it lacked public justification and alternatives. **2. Kant's Deontological Ethics** Kantian ethics follows the **categorical imperative**: - **Lying is always immoral** because it treats people as **means to an end**. - **Moral rules must be universalized**---if lying were always acceptable, trust in government would collapse. 👉 **Application to Iran-Contra Affair**: - **Did the U.S. treat the public as mere means to an end?** ✅ Yes. The government **misled Congress and citizens**. - **Could deception be a universal rule?** ❌ No. If all governments lied like this, democracy would break down. 🛑 **Conclusion:** **Kantian ethics condemns the Iran-Contra Affair as immoral, regardless of intent**. **3. Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)** Utilitarianism evaluates whether the **good outweighs the harm**: - **If deception leads to a better outcome**, it may be justified. - **If the consequences of deception are worse**, it is immoral. 👉 **Application to Iran-Contra Affair**: ✅ **Possible Benefits**: - Helped the Contras resist **communism in Nicaragua**. - May have **accelerated the release of hostages**. - Strengthened U.S. influence in Latin America. ❌ **Harms & Negative Consequences**: - **Massive loss of public trust** in government. - **Violated U.S. laws** (Boland Amendment, arms embargo). - Set a **dangerous precedent for future secret operations**. - **Did not significantly change the outcome of the Nicaraguan war**. 🛑 **Conclusion:** **The harms outweighed the benefits**, making the deception **unjustifiable under consequentialism**. **Final Evaluation: Was the Iran-Contra Affair Justified?** **Ethical Theory** **Verdict** **Reasoning** --------------------------------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ **Bok's Justification for Deception** ❌ Unjustified No public approval, alternatives ignored **Kant's Deontology** ❌ Unjustified Lying is always immoral **Utilitarianism (Consequentialism)** ❌ Unjustified Harm (loss of trust, legal violations) outweighed benefits **Final Verdict: The Iran-Contra Affair Was Unethical** - **Failed all ethical tests**---no public justification, broke laws, and harmed democracy. - **Eroded trust in government**, leading to stricter oversight on covert operations. - **Even from a utilitarian view, the deception backfired**---U.S. credibility suffered, and the Contras ultimately failed to overthrow the Sandinistas. **Exam Strategy for This Case** When answering an exam question on the **Iran-Contra Affair**, follow this structure: **1. Define the Ethical Problem** - \"The Iran-Contra Affair raises the question of **whether political deception is ever justified**. The Reagan administration engaged in secret arms sales and covert funding, violating laws and misleading the public.\" **2. Apply Ethical Tests** **Bok's Justification for Deception** ❌ Failed---no public justification, non-deceptive alternatives ignored. **Kantian Ethics (Deontology)** ❌ Failed---lying is always wrong, and citizens were used as means to an end. **Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)** ❌ Failed---the harms (loss of trust, legal violations) outweighed the benefits. **3. Conclusion** - **The deception was unethical** under all frameworks. - **Set a dangerous precedent for future administrations**. - **Showed the importance of democratic oversight in foreign policy**. **Final Takeaways** 1. **The Iran-Contra Affair was a major U.S. political scandal**, violating **laws and democratic principles**. 2. **Ethically, it fails all major tests**---lacking public justification, violating moral laws, and causing more harm than good. 3. **The case highlights the dangers of government deception** and the **need for transparency and accountability**. **Case Breakdown: Deception & Informed Consent (Denver Income Maintenance Experiment)** **Historical Context: What Was the Denver Income Maintenance Experiment (DIME)?** The **Denver Income Maintenance Experiment (DIME)** was part of a larger set of **social experiments in the U.S. between the 1960s and 1980s** to test the effects of a **Negative Income Tax (NIT)** on low-income families. These experiments were conducted by the **U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)** to assess how guaranteed income affected **employment, household stability, and economic behavior**. **Key Features of DIME:** 1. **What Was the Negative Income Tax (NIT)?** - Under NIT, families **below a certain income level** received **direct cash payments from the government**. - Unlike welfare, NIT payments **decreased gradually** as people earned more (instead of being cut off abruptly). - The goal was to **provide a financial safety net while maintaining work incentives**. 2. **How the Experiment Worked:** - Low-income families were **randomly selected** to receive **NIT payments for a set period**. - Their **employment behavior** was tracked to see if they **worked less due to guaranteed income**. - The study aimed to **inform future welfare policies** in the U.S. 3. **Ethical Concerns:** - **Did participants fully understand the risks?** - **Was their participation truly voluntary, or were they coerced by financial incentives?** - **Did the government provide enough information about the potential consequences?** **Ethical Issues at Stake** The DIME case raises **key questions about informed consent and government responsibility**: 1. **What are the ethical limits of social experiments on vulnerable populations?** 2. **Is it ethical to provide financial incentives that may coerce participation?** 3. **Does the government have an obligation to ensure participants fully understand risks?** 4. **Should policymakers be allowed to experiment on citizens to test public policies?** **Ethical Theories & Tests to Apply** To evaluate whether DIME was ethical, we apply the following ethical frameworks: **1. Informed Consent Test (Dworkin & Feinberg)** Informed consent is **essential in ethical research**. This test asks: ✅ **Did participants fully understand all risks and benefits?**\ ✅ **Was there coercion (e.g., financial incentives) influencing participation?**\ ✅ **Is tacit (silent) consent valid, or must explicit consent be obtained?** 👉 **Application to DIME:** - **Did participants understand the risks?** ❌ Many **did not know the payments were temporary**, leading to long-term financial instability. - **Was participation voluntary?** ⚠️ Families **needed financial support**, so they may have felt **forced to participate**. - **Was tacit consent valid?** ❌ The government **assumed consent**, rather than ensuring participants were fully informed. 🛑 **Conclusion:** The DIME experiment **failed the informed consent test** due to **lack of transparency and potential coercion**. **2. Bok's Justification for Deception** Bok argues that **deception in research and policy can only be justified if**: ✅ There is **public justification**.\ ✅ **Non-deceptive alternatives** were exhausted.\ ✅ The deception **passes ethical scrutiny** (e.g., conscience test, public test). 👉 **Application to DIME:** - **Was deception publicly justified?** ❌ No. The government did not clearly explain the potential risks. - **Were non-deceptive alternatives explored?** ❌ No. More **transparent approaches** (e.g., financial counseling) could have been used. - **Would the deception pass ethical scrutiny?** ❌ No. Many families **suffered financial distress when payments ended**. 🛑 **Conclusion:** The DIME experiment **fails Bok's test**, as it lacked transparency and alternatives. **3. Autonomy & Manipulation (Dworkin & Feinberg)** Autonomy is a fundamental principle in ethics. **Dworkin & Feinberg argue**: ✅ Individuals should have the right to **make informed decisions**.\ ✅ Governments should **not manipulate** citizens **through lack of disclosure**. 👉 **Application to DIME:** - **Did participants have full autonomy?** ❌ No. Many **did not fully understand the risks**. - **Did the government manipulate participants?** ⚠️ **By withholding information**, families were misled about the long-term effects. 🛑 **Conclusion:** The experiment **violated principles of autonomy** by **not ensuring informed decision-making**. **4. Kant's Deontological Ethics** Kantian ethics follows the **categorical imperative**: - **Deception is always immoral**, regardless of intent. - **Citizens must be treated as ends, not means**. 👉 **Application to DIME:** - **Did the government treat participants as a means to an end?** ✅ Yes. They were **used to test a policy** without full knowledge. - **Was deception justified under Kantian ethics?** ❌ No. **Lying or omitting information is always wrong**, even for policy research. 🛑 **Conclusion:** **Kantian ethics condemns the DIME experiment** because **it used people as test subjects without full consent**. **5. Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)** Utilitarianism evaluates whether the **good outweighed the harm**: - **If the experiment provided valuable policy data**, it may be justified. - **If the harm to participants was greater**, it is unethical. 👉 **Application to DIME:** ✅ **Possible Benefits**: - Helped **inform welfare policy**. - Provided **temporary financial relief** to families. - Showed how financial aid **affects employment behavior**. ❌ **Harms & Negative Consequences**: - Families **suffered financially** when payments **suddenly stopped**. - **Lack of transparency** caused **false expectations**. - Experiment **did not significantly change U.S. welfare policy**. 🛑 **Conclusion:** **Harms outweighed benefits**, making the experiment **unjustified under consequentialism**. **Final Evaluation: Was the DIME Experiment Ethical?** **Ethical Theory** **Verdict** **Reasoning** -------------------------------------------------- --------------- ----------------------------------------------- **Informed Consent Test** ❌ Unjustified Participants were not fully informed **Bok's Justification for Deception** ❌ Unjustified No public justification, alternatives ignored **Autonomy & Manipulation (Dworkin & Feinberg)** ❌ Unjustified Participants were misled and manipulated **Kant's Deontology** ❌ Unjustified Deception is always wrong **Utilitarianism (Consequentialism)** ❌ Unjustified Harm to families outweighed benefits **Final Verdict: The DIME Experiment Was Unethical** - **Lacked informed consent**---participants were not fully aware of risks. - **Violated autonomy**---the government failed to ensure free decision-making. - **Set a dangerous precedent**---allowed **experimentation on vulnerable populations** without full transparency. **Exam Strategy for This Case** When answering an exam question on the **DIME experiment**, follow this structure: **1. Define the Ethical Problem** - \"The DIME experiment raises the question of **whether social experiments can be ethically conducted without fully informing participants**. The government provided financial aid but **failed to ensure families understood the risks**.\" **2. Apply Ethical Tests** **Informed Consent Test** ❌ Failed---participants were unaware of risks. **Bok's Justification for Deception** ❌ Failed---no public justification, non-deceptive alternatives ignored. **Autonomy & Manipulation (Dworkin & Feinberg)** ❌ Failed---families were misled about long-term effects. **Kantian Ethics (Deontology)** ❌ Failed---deception is always immoral. **Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)** ❌ Failed---harms outweighed policy benefits. **3. Conclusion** - **The experiment was unethical** due to **lack of transparency and deception**. - **Governments must ensure informed consent in policy research**. - **The case highlights the need for ethical guidelines in social experiments**. **Final Takeaways** 1. **DIME was an important welfare study** but **raised serious ethical concerns**. 2. **It failed all major ethical tests**---lacking informed consent, autonomy, and public justification. 3. **The case highlights the risks of policy experiments on vulnerable populations**.